Does 3/3.5E cause more "rule arguments" than earlier editions?

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I tend to notice that people want their way and they want it no matter what. So if they can make up some good excuse for it regardless of what the rules say then they are going to argue over it.
It doesnt matter what rules your playing with or what game your playing, people just want to get their way, right or wrong.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Also, I saw that an earlier post kept referring to "old DM's". I'm 24, I'm not old. There are some who just prefer older editions. We're not all stodgy old coots, you know.

That’s kind of funny, I’m 24 too and I think I was the one talking about old dm’s an all. I don’t think i really meant old dm’s, possibly dm’s who play the older editions, but it was quicker to say old dm’s. In my case though, older dm’s (literally 10 or more years older then me) have all been major conceding jerks who really put a bad taste in my mouth after the game is over. Granted, i have only played with two dm’s that have been older then me, but they have both been into 2e or 1e and have both been condescending, and anal, controlling ect... so i have a bias to be sure, but I am fully ready to shed my skin if someone who has played d&d for a long while is running a game in the west la area (mar vista), is willing to show me any different. I’m not looking for a group though, but i would like to rid myself of this bias.

Ah what now? The topic at hand… well I think the internet gives us a power medium of communication and of course it lets us argue about anything. If the internet existed the way it does now in 1e, I’m sure we would argue in a very similar manor.

 

[WizarDru]

I don't suffer from a shortage of players, so if folks don't lke the way I play, I tell them maybe we can have a beer sometime over a movie, but I ain't changing a system that has worked for 16 years because they don't like it.

I'm guessing you mean the system you mean being D&D, not your particular style...or are you saying you haven't changed at all since you were 8?

Besides, questioning isn't my problem. Endless debate is.

Well, frankly if that works for you, that's great...but I'd never run a game where I didn't implicitly trust my players (who are my friends). Under 3.x, you rarely have to improvise so dramatically as you did under AD&D, for example. Using stat checks covered an awful lot when there was no system for skills, so often proficiencies were used as a 'best guess'. "Well, I was a blacksmith's son, so I should be able to repair my sword if I can use the forge."

In your example, you pull the numbers out of the air for what feels right. That's fine, but I prefer having some guidelines so I, as DM, can stay consistent. Consistency allows my players to rightfully gauge what they can and cannot do in the game world. 3.X offers use the balance check, which gives pretty darned good guidelines for the situation you described.

I just think it odd that the implication is that by having rules that detail some of these things, that somehow they remove the DM's authority. Those were never invested in the rules. I saw AD&D DMs who were routinely bullied by their players, and I've seen authoritarian 3.X DMs who won't yield on their personal house rules, regardless of how they jibe with the existing rules.

Of course, as often as not, these discussions seem to highlight how many people play with other gamers who they aren't friends with, which to me is part of the difference in viewpoint.

 

[diaglo]

As DannyAlcatraz said, it's the internet that gives the perception of these debates raging. Around 99.9% of gaming tables, they never come up.

they come at game tables i go to all the time.

we say did you see that argument on ENWurld/WOTC/RPG.net/ whatever over Rule X. we laugh at them. good times. gotta love teh drama and teh waste of peoples energies over some of the most mundane trivial hooey.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Granted, i have only played with two dm’s that have been older then me, but they have both been into 2e or 1e and have both been condescending, and anal, controlling ect... so i have a bias to be sure, but I am fully ready to shed my skin if someone who has played d&d for a long while is running a game in the west la area (mar vista), is willing to show me any different.

Too bad I moved from there to Canada......

 

[Umbran]

If I lump together the arguments over written rules and DM rulings, I think folks at table argue over them about as frequently.

It is my observation that the root of argument is not within the rules, but within the players and GM. I don't believe that the rules encourage or discourage argument - folks who are apt to argue will do so in any system. But that's just my own experience. YMMV.

 

[ThirdWizard]

In that case I would direct you to look at a certain 10+ page debate on whether a Monk can take Improved Natural Attack as a feat or not.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out that this should never be debated in session.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Not in my campaigns. I lay down the law. http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=175709

---Rusty

 

[Mycanid]

Ahem...

"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Volumes, you are the creator and final arbiter."
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons "Dungeon Masters Guide", 1979
​

OORAH! I have always been very fortunate in the sense that those I have gamed with have always been very willing to go along with whatever the DM decided, even if they did not agree, because they primarily wanted the game to move along and to enjoy themselves with their friends.

I know that others game in different ways though. I stumbled across a game rules argument once and it just deflated the entire game. Phooey.

 

[Hussar]

Because we become aware of something on the Internet, it does not follow that "Around 99.9% of gaming tables, they never come up."

I do concede, of course, that arguing on the Internet is more fun (often) than arguing in real life, so Internet arguments seem to last longer. OTOH, those rules questions nearly always come up as an adjunct to an argument that happened at someone's table (or all those posters are lying).

If you have a strong set of rules and an established means to arbitrate disputes, you shouldn't be having these sorts of problems. I am suggesting that groups who have these problems do so not because of the ruleset, but because they lack an established means to arbitrate disputes.

Oh, I fully agree that the issue came up at someone's table. But, by and large, everyone else discussing the issue on the internet probably have never seen it come up at their's. Take the monk and Improved Natural Weapons discussion - a hot button topic. Considering monks are one of the least played classes according to the polls on the matter, it is very, very likely that this issue never comes up in the majority of games out there. And, even in games with a monk, some will not want to take the feat (or know it exists), meaning it doesn't come up there as well.

Ok, the 3 9's was a number I pulled from my vas deferens, but, it still makes my point.

To be brutally honest, one of the things that I noticed playing 3e was has much quieter my games have gotten. Thinking about it, the last major rule dispute I had was a few years ago when both me and the player were actually wrong. He felt that you couldn't use dispel magic as a counterspell, I was wrong in that I thought you could do so from any range. Sigh.

Although, this did result in a houserule where dispel magic was changed to a long range spell in order to protect ships from extended fireballs.